Background to the May 9 Incident
The May 9 episode, which saw clashes and vandalism following political developments, led to a wave of legal actions across several districts in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (K-P). In Mardan, multiple cases were registered against PTI supporters and others under anti-terrorism provisions. The events had sparked significant political debate and were marked by arrests and prosecutions that the government later described as politically motivated or inadequately investigated.
As the province sought to manage its security and political stability, questions arose about the evidentiary basis of the cases and their long-term utility for justice and governance.
Cabinet Decision to Withdraw Cases
According to official sources, the K-P government decided to withdraw the May 9 vandalism and firing cases, including the one in Mardan. Advocate General Shah Faisal confirmed that the cabinet gave the green light for withdrawal after reviewing the cases. The decision was framed by the government as a step toward administrative efficiency and a response to concerns about flawed investigations and insufficient evidence.
The Advocate General noted that the cases were largely perceived as acts of political victimisation and that continuing them would strain resources without yielding meaningful results. In line with this assessment, the cabinet circulated the decision for formal withdrawal, and the Home Department was directed to initiate the necessary administrative steps to discontinue proceedings.
Legal Oversight and Next Steps
Advocate Muhammad Inaam Yousafzai has been appointed as special prosecutor to oversee the withdrawal process and related legal proceedings. This appointment is intended to ensure a transparent and orderly withdrawal, minimizing any potential legal ambiguities as cases are closed. The court has scheduled the next hearing for October 15, indicating ongoing judicial coordination even as administrative actions are taken.
Context and Implications
The decision to withdraw a wave of cases is notable within the broader political landscape of K-P, where the aftermath of the May 9 protests included a crackdown on PTI supporters and a large number of FIRs filed across districts. While the government cites administrative efficiency and the absence of progress in these cases, critics may view withdrawals as potentially political in nature.
From a governance perspective, proponents argue that withdrawing weak or baseless cases can free up prosecutorial and judicial resources for cases with clearer evidence and public-interest stakes. It may also signal a shift toward healing political divisions and reducing protests that strain provincial administration.
Public Reactions and Future Outlook
Public reaction to the withdrawal decision is likely to be mixed. Supporters of the move may welcome a focus on substantive justice and resource optimization, while opponents could question accountability for actions taken during the May 9 period. The October 15 court hearing remains a barometer for how far the legal process will proceed in the absence of these cases.
For PTI and other stakeholders, this development could influence ongoing political narratives, particularly regarding governance, accountability, and the use of anti-terrorism charges in politically charged events. The government has indicated it will continue reviewing other related cases to ensure consistency in approach and due process.
Conclusion
The withdrawal of the May 9 vandalism and firing cases in Mardan marks a pivotal moment in K-P’s management of politically sensitive prosecutions. While the legal process for these specific cases proceeds toward formal closure, the broader question of how best to balance security, justice, and political stability remains a central theme in provincial governance.
